Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The same flag outside the current house speaker's office?
Speaker Johnson's close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe
Flags associated with acts of treason have been normalized now. Good luck pursuing that investigation for more than just show.
Congress is bias and allowed to be. The courts are bias and not supposed to be. They are supposed to recuse themselves if they have Personal bias/impact on a case.
It's probably easier to bring charges against him then try to pressure him into doing the right thing and recusing himself...
We keep picking these fights that will take just as much effort as real progress, but if we win, it's such small victories that it doesn't really matter.
That's not an excuse not to do anything tho, it's a pretty obvious reason we need to try and do more.
You can't fight fascist extremists by meeting them halway.
Charge him with what, exactly? He has a first amendment right to fly whatever politically divisive flag he (or his wife if we're to believe him) chooses, just as anyone else does. As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court still has no legally-binding ethics rules, so no matter how clear a bias he shows, there's no crime to prosecute. His recusal is at his sole discretion.
I don't know if the legislative branch has the authority to codify a legally enforceable code of ethics that has some backbone, but even if they do I'm sure someone would fight it up to the Supreme Court where they'd just nullify it anyway.
Then our system of government is imperfect and should be changed. By the people, for the people.
What charges you are talking about? There is nothing unlawful in flying whatever flags at your home, including swastika. The only thing I am not sure about is the upside down flag.
The only thing I am not sure about is the upside down flag.
Under the US Flag Code flying the flag upside down is a sign of distress or great danger. It's worth noting that the US Flag Code is an advisory code, i.e. These are guidelines, not laws. There's a long history of attempts to codify the Flag Code into law and various levels of government being smacked down by the courts. Ultimately, Alito (or his wife) is well within his rights to fly whatever flag he wants, however he wants. It doesn't mean he isn't a terrible person, but even terrible people's speech is protected.
Except that Supreme Court justices are supposed to be seen as non partisan, and flying the flag in that manner, especially at that time, has a very specific partisan meaning.
They are supposed to be non-partisan in their professional capacity. Asking anyone to not engage in politics in their personal life would also likely slam face-first into the First Amendment. US Federal Employees do have limitations on partisan activities, but only while on the clock or when acting as in an official capacity. They also cannot hold elected office at any level of government. While those rules do not apply to the Supreme Court Justices, it does provide a good baseline for expectations.
Supreme Court Justices are still citizens of the US with all of the rights that entails. While they should be held to a much higher standard, while working in an official capacity. Once they get home, if they want to hang out in their chonies and wave a flag which overtly states "I'm a fucking moron who hates people for no reason", well that is their right, just like any other citizen.
Ultimately, this whole flag kerfluffle seems like more "outrage culture" crap. Sure, I agree it makes Alito look like an asshole. But, anyone calling for criminal prosecution has their head so far up their own ass they are likely to see daylight again. Free speech, is one of those really tough things to support. It's easy to say, "I have a right to free speech". The hard thing is saying "and so does that asshole". But, iot's important top protect, because eventually, you might the the "asshole" to the people in charge.
Not sure about charges but https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf it's very clear that the justice has a personal bias that makes a reasonable person question their impartiality.
That's going to be one of those things which would need to be demonstrated on a case by case basis. Does being an asshole make him biased in a case on corporate law? Probably not. There could be cases where such a display might be used to question if he should recuse himself, but it's going to be much harder than "I think a reasonable person could question his impartiality". Honestly, if my lawyer was planning on that to make or break a case, I'd go find a new lawyer. Really, the interesting part of that code of ethics is the bit around political activities and the limits placed on the court and it's staff. Though, even those have been severely weakened for lower courts, where the limits are actually enforced.
And, as has been noted about the code, it's really just a paper tiger.
Indeed, all the staff are prevented from doing something so overtly politically biased.
The question was asked about what can you possibly charge.
It would probably be easier to charge Thomas for tax evasion for all that free stuff I am sure he never claimed.
So let me get this right......
Clarence Thomas has been shown to be taking bribes to the tune of millions of dollars in cash, property, vacations, etc., and Congress barely responds with crickets. Alito flies an upside down flag and all of a sudden everyone's panties are in a bunch? Priorities......
With that said, Democrats are the ones making noise despite having exactly zero power to do shit about it. Even if they could somehow get impeachment charges in a GOP-led house, I have a better chance of being blown by the entire Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad in alphabetical order than the Senate removing either one of them from office.
Which means this is all political theater. Alito's lifetime appointment and the fact that the Supreme Court isn't bound by any enforcable ethics rules mean he could literally say "Yeah, so what? What are you going to do about it? #MAGA", knowing full well his seat will remain safe.
Clarence Thomas has been shown to be taking bribes to the tune of millions of dollars in cash, property, vacations, etc., and Congress barely responds with crickets.
They made just as much noise in the immediate aftermath of everything that came out about Clarence. And also like back then, nothing will happen.
Laughs in lifetime appointment
Yeah, but Trollito only thinks anti-xtian "bias" is worthy of concern. Being for a coup and an insurrection is probably NBD.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Leading Democrats are demanding that Samuel Alito recuse himself from election-related cases and also face investigation after a second report that a flag now associated with the far right was flying above one of his homes.
The demands follow a new report by the New York Times of a second incidence of flags flown at homes of Alito that are associated with the 6 January 2021 attack at the US Capitol.
Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in during an interview with the MSNBC host Chris Hayes late on Wednesday, calling on Senate Democrats to launch “active investigations”.
The New York Times reported that an “appeal to heaven” flag, which has been adopted by Christian nationalists, was flown at the summer home of Alito on Long Beach Island, New Jersey, last July and September.
Also known as the pine tree flag, it was originally used on warships commanded by George Washington during the American revolutionary war against the ruling British.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, posted on X: “Flying this flag is a political statement that is a clear and compelling reason for Alito’s recusal.
The original article contains 685 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!